June 3, 2016

Hillary's "phony speech" was a criticism of Trump's speech (in something of the style of a Trump speech): "Donald Trump's ideas are not just different, they are dangerously incoherent...They're not even really ideas, just a series of bizarre rants, personal feuds and outright lies."

That speech of hers was supposed to be a major foreign policy speech, but — as Hillary-friendly sites have noted — it was short on foreign policy. Here's the NYT:

But although her campaign had described the speech as a major foreign policy address, Mrs. Clinton spent more time ridiculing and dismantling Mr. Trump’s statements than she did elucidating her positions. Here are a few key issues she did not discuss....

Ironically, the main argument against Trump has been that he's ridiculing and attacking other people and not providing any policy specifics.

I don't think it works to attack Trump by talking like Trump. For one thing, you're not Trump. How can you suddenly adopt his style? His style emanates from him and is the culmination of a long life of practicing talking like that. Second, if you talk like him, you're a hypocrite if you criticize him for talking like that.

Of course, you can say that other ways to attack him don't work either. That's called checkmate.

Note: Trump says that Hillsry should "go to jail." He does not say anything about her getting a fair trial or something along the lines that if she is have found to have broken the law she should be punished: Instead she should "go to jail." That is the language of a despotic Third Wirld dictator wannabe.

I also was misled into thinking she was going to make a "policy speech" and heard Hillary's promoted as a "response" to Trump's thoughtful speech at AIPAC.

Wrong. Bait and switch again. Her "policy" was to do a shitty Trump impression for 45 minutes, interspersed with credentialing for dummies. "I was Secretary of State" and "I was a Senator" and "I flew a million miles" and "Look at all my EXPERIENCE," which was all 100% free of ACCOMPLISHMENTS because, as we all know. She has NONE.

And still I heard praise for her performance. Jeezuz. Yes the dog was walking on it's hind legs but no it doesn't make it a man.

And I did listen to her list of things she would do: "get tough with ISIS" and "rebuild relationships" and I have to wonder why she didn't do these things when she was in a position of power and influence. It sounded a lot like "I will do the Russian reset but this time with a button big enough for the whole world."

I don't think it works to attack Trump by talking like Trump. For one thing, you're not Trump. How can you suddenly adopt his style?

Rubio tried that and it was a disaster for him. It seems like a lot of Pols are learning the wrong lessons from Trump. His appeal is primarily that his supporters feel that he is fighting for them. He stands up to the powers that be, including the MSM, and advocates for the middle and working classes that are increasingly being disenfranchised. He is a nationalist that feels that the interests of the nation and its citizens should come first and not be subsumed to globalist agendas.

You aren't going to lure any of his supporters away by simply becoming bombastic. When people who are clearly part of the governing party attempt to be bombastic they just look stupid, at best.

Once written, twice... said...Note: Trump says that Hillsry should "go to jail." He does not say anything about her getting a fair trial or something along the lines that if she is have found to have broken the law she should be punished: Instead she should "go to jail." That is the language of a despotic Third Wirld dictator wannabe.

It's so cute when people try to convince themselves normal speech is evidence of fascism. It helps you recognize how they come to be so wrong about everything else.

You've only covered this on the surface. This was never even close to being a foreign policy speech. It was about Hilary being able to hold a press conference where she could rant about whatever she wanted,while at the same time completely avoid the responsibility of allowing the press an unfiltered opportunity to ask her questions. Call me when she has a real press conference.

I agree. Attempting to talk like Trump didn't exactly work out for Rubio. You can't play his game. Hillary's only appeal that might work would be to try to behave as the calm, sober alternative to Trump's bombast. But honestly I doubt that will work either.

Hillary is a horrible campaigner going up against a media master during a season of insanity. And with all the other baggage she's carrying, most notably the very distinct possibility that she'll be in some very serious legal hot water in the near future, I just find it hard to believe that the Democrat party won't eventually either ask or force her to step down.

"Once written, twice... said...Note: Trump says that Hillsry should "go to jail." He does not say anything about her getting a fair trial or something along the lines that if she is have found to have broken the law she should be punished: Instead she should "go to jail." That is the language of a despotic Third Wirld dictator wannabe.

I don't think it works to attack Trump by talking like Trump. For one thing, you're not Trump. How can you suddenly adopt his style? His style emanates from him and is the culmination of a long life of practicing talking like that. Second, if you talk like him, you're a hypocrite if you criticize him for talking like that.

Not really meant as an insult, but it brings to mind the advice: "Never argue with an idiot. They will bring you to their level and then beat you with experience"

Hillary tried it because there is no core to Hillary.

Note: Trump says that Hillsry should "go to jail." He does not say anything about her getting a fair trial

Are your shoulders and back OK? Because that stretch there looked painful.

Ron Winkleheimer: "It seems like a lot of Pols are learning the wrong lessons from Trump." Yes. You can't fake that style. You should see where his power comes from, which is --as you say-- the sense that he is a fighter and fighting for his tribe. If the other GOP candidates had shown even a fraction of that commitment and expressed it in terms that ordinary voters could understand, we would not be looking at this electoral Armageddon. How so many smart, experienced, eloquent candidates utterly FAILED to do this, will be one of the great mysteries of our age. Maybe the Democrats put dope in the Evian in the debate green rooms?

Its entirely possible, even likely, for both sides to be fascist, if the conflict is tribal and ultiimately zero-sum. Which this is turning out to be. The problem for anyone who doesnt want to be a fascist is that these things make you choose a side, there is no neutrality; you are one or the other, because the other side will assign you a side. The only way out of this politics is economic growth such that everything isnt zero-sum.

Some of the dishonest Media seem to be getting tired of lying to sustain the Clinton Foundation's wealth.

I suspect Obama wants back in so bad he will execute a public smearing of the hated Hillary and insert his personal Medvedev into the Presidency until the next Big Crisis requiring World Governance comes to pass.

"I will do the Russian reset but this time with a button big enough for the whole world."

Mike,

It was NOT a "reset" button that Hillary gave Putin. She gave him a very specific kind of button. So specific that it is regulated by federal law.

Red button? Check

Yellow background? Check.

That is what is legally defined as an "Emergency Stop" button. It is required to stop power to a machine immediately. As opposed to a cycle stop button which allows the machine to continue to its home position.

A reset button can be any color except red. The background can be any color except yellow. Use a red button for anything else and you risk injury, lawsuits and fines.

When you think about it, an Emergency Stop button is a much better metaphor for the Hilary/Obama/Putin relationship than a "reset" button.

Several here seem to think Trump said that Hillary "should" go to jail. I have not listened to the speech yet but it seems that he said "has to" go to jail. I think that is a much different and much stronger statement.

I agree with several that this is worrisome, especially in a presidential candidate. If he is elected, would it not taint the jury pool? Or, since he is not yet Prez, does it not matter?

In any event, I think he should have qualified that with an "if the accusations are true, if she is convicted, she has to go to jail." I don't think that implying someone should go to jail without charges is a good thing for anyone to say. It is especially bad for a presidential candidate to say.

"Note: Trump says that Hillsry should "go to jail." He does not say anything about her getting a fair trial or something along the lines that if she is have found to have broken the law she should be punished: Instead she should "go to jail." That is the language of a despotic Third Wirld dictator wannabe."

This person should go to jail is what the prosecutor says at the outset of proceedings. Process follows. Knowing what we already know, is it fair to express the opinion that she should be prosecuted? You are saying no. Why?

That was a special Triumphant speech by Trump. Hillary cannot beat that. Maybe Obama could lie and be protected by his Race status, but Hillary cannot play that card.

Gingrich says that Trump is at war with both establishments who have been running DC since Eisenhower days. He has an Historian's mind. I bet Trump will name him VP for that role, and as they say, Assassination Insurance.

This person should go to jail is what the prosecutor says at the outset of proceedings. Process follows. Knowing what we already know, is it fair to express the opinion that she should be prosecuted? You are saying no. Why?

Because so far there is no evidence of a crime. Bad judgement, yes. Not following State Department policy, yes (but that is not a crime, it might get someone fired, but they're not going to jail).

Notice also that Bernie supporters are starting to threaten Hillary backers and sponsors with violence.

Bernie supporters are used to attacking trump supporters but were afraid to go after Hillary. Now they are no longer afraid. Out of all of the people being wrongly called fascist it is Bernie supporters that are the closest to that.

Hillary did it to skirt around FOIA.. She didn't know what was going to happen with the new O administration. She didn't trust him or his people around him and she was protecting herself from him or what she thought he might do that would hurt her. Coming out of 2008, it is not hard to see why she was thinking like that. It is also easy to see that she wanted the SoS gig badly because opportunities like that don't come easily.

"This person should go to jail is what the prosecutor says at the outset of proceedings. Process follows. Knowing what we already know, is it fair to express the opinion that she should be prosecuted? You are saying no. Why?"

Althouse changing the subject notwithstanding, since when did Trump become a prosecutor?

What do you already know? Here's what "we" know ~ you're swooning over Trump like you were swooning over Romney 4 years ago ie existing evidence.

Hillary's speech enables her friends in the media to focus on "dangerous Donald". They'll find experts from every field prepared to testify on television and write articles that he's "scary". Ann Althouse dismembered one of those articles yesterday in her blog. The NYT's ran another today using the same formula.

The trouble is we've seen this film before, the characters in the film are unlikable, the acting is wooden and it has a bad ending.

Whereas the Trump story is significantly more entertaining. It is novel, accessible, dynamic, with lots of bad guys and we're not quite sure how it will end. Is it High Noon or Animal House?

Can you envision Trump's ads with Hillary and her reset button (first clip) and (second clip) Russia invading Crimea and (third clip) the remnants of the airliner downed with a Russian rocket? Easy answer for Hillary's claims as a talented SOS. .... or how about the burned rubble of the Benghazi facility followed by the scene at Andrews Air Force base of caskets being unloaded overdubbed with "it was the video's fault".....or a clip of Hillary receiving flowers from the child in Bosnia overdubbed with her lie about dodging sniper fire.... there have to be more, but I have to go do chores!

Wow. It feels like the era of Barack "punch back" Obama has resulted in a real coarsening of our political discourse . . . I remember when people were tittering about how he slyly gave Clinton II the finger during his speeches. This is a whole new level. But I suppose the era of Obama is giving way to the era of Trump now.

My point about the prosecutorial position is that the prosecutor, by saying someone belongs in prison, is not saying he doesn't believe in submitting to the judicial process. The two ideas are not inconsistent.

My point about the prosecutorial position is that the prosecutor, by saying someone belongs in prison, is not saying he doesn't believe in submitting to the judicial process. The two ideas are not inconsistent.

You're right, of course, but the argument you dispute wasn't made in good faith in the first place. It was an obviously weak and painfully dishonest attempt to protect Hillary. (You know, the despotic Third-World dictator wannabe promised the Benghazi fallen families that she would put the film-maker in jail.

Also note: Once written, twice...has never found that worth criticizing.)

"This person should go to jail is what the prosecutor says at the outset of proceedings. Process follows. Knowing what we already know, is it fair to express the opinion that she should be prosecuted? You are saying no. Why?"

Althouse changing the subject notwithstanding, since when did Trump become a prosecutor?

Wow, you guys are really reaching to find things wrong with Trump. A common and ordinary phrase. "She should be in jail" doesn't make him a prosecutor any more than my saying "There outta be a law" makes me a legislator.

Both statements are expressions of opinion. Hillary should be in jail. Of course it doesn't mean straight to jail, do not pass Go. It means she should be prosecuted and if found guilty go to jail.

Ann, you would have gone apeshit if Kerry had said in 2004 that Bush should be in jail for war crimes. There is no precedent in U.S. History for one major party candidate to say the other should be in jail. This is going further down a path that will distabilize our political system.

"Note: Trump says that Hillsry should 'go to jail.' He does not say anything about her getting a fair trial or something along the lines that if she is have found to have broken the law she should be punished: Instead she should 'go to jail.' That is the language of a despotic Third Wirld dictator wannabe."

Criticize what Trump actually said instead of what you think he said. Go to 21:50 in the video: "And then if I win . . . It's called a five-year statute of limitations, if I win. Now, everything's going to be fair, but I'm sure the Attorney General will take a very good look at it, from a fair standpoint. OK? I'm sure. It's disgraceful."

Hillary clearly broke the law. I had a TS/SCI clearance. You don't "take things off" the secure networks. She took classified material off the secure network and put it on a non-secure network.

I would be in jail for life if I did what Hillary did. Manning IS in jail for life for doing what she did. The only reason Hillary is not in jail for life right now is she is wealthy and politically powerful and a democrat.

Rick: It's so cute when people try to convince themselves normal speech is evidence of fascism. It helps you recognize how they come to be so wrong about everything else.

They've been flogging those tired old '60s memes ("fascist!", "authoritarian!") from the beginning, and they'll keep on flogging them 'til the end. It's all they've got. Their problem is, it sounds idiotic to anybody but dopey partisans, and Hillary herself is an endless source of speech that doesn't have to be ham-handedly stretched or otherwise "interpreted" to reveal its authoritarian intent. I doubt that rich mine will be overlooked by Trump's campaign.

(Aside: This campaign season calls the old "it takes a thief" adage to mind - as it takes a thief to catch a thief, it takes a clown to out the clowns. Candidates always mud-sling, they attack policies and persons, but the effect is to paint their opponents as wrong-headed or even evil - never as merely risible and contemptible pretenders. The mutually advantageous illusion that the current system comprises Serious People worthy of power is maintained.

But then the big buffoon, the big clown shows up, and the more his opponents call him out as a buffoon, the more their own buffoonery is revealed. The more they complain about his contemptuous manners toward his opponents, the more contemptible those opponents appear.

A whole lot of transparently foolish speech put out by a lot of foolish people didn't seem to register with large swathes of the electorate for what it really was - the speech of foolish and incompetent people. Trump, the clown, is apparently pushing a significant number of those people to rub their eyes, clear their ears, and ask themselves, "Why on earth have I been taking these other chuckleheads seriously?")

btw DBQ, when Althouse went full moderation (3) years ago you, as well as many others, mentioned at Lem's blog you were totally done w/this blog. Did you and Althouse kiss and make up?

Oh hell, are you actually going to try and pull this? Hilarious.

"Didn't you say this thing somewhere else!?!?!"

DBQ doesn't need my defense, but damn, this is weak sauce.

Ann, you would have gone apeshit if Kerry had said in 2004 that Bush should be in jail for war crimes.

Well, given that he committed no war crimes...

There is no precedent in U.S. History for one major party candidate to say the other should be in jail.

Most party candidates haven't so brazenly violated the law as Hillary has done, either. Historically, parties would avoid nominating felons.

This is going further down a path that will distabilize our political system.

As opposed to using the IRS to target political foes then protecting them from prosecution when they somehow have a shockingly large issue of hard drive "failures" and an "investigation" that can be proven to have never actually occurred.

Or when multiple members of an administration use private email heavily for work, ignoring federal records keeping rules.

Or when a President attacks a country and decides that Congress doesn't need to be involved.

Hillary clearly broke the law. I had a TS/SCI clearance. You don't "take things off" the secure networks. She took classified material off the secure network and put it on a non-secure network.

TECHNICALLY, her underlings did it (Hillary can't do shit herself). Her ordering them to do so, though, likely violates several laws.

Yes, Hillary should be criminally punished for her reckless mishandling of classified material. Trump saying that does not prejudice the investigation or the potential criminal case. On the other hand, Obama stepping in and saying that he does not believe Hillary jeopardized national security DOES prejudice the proceedings by suggesting his inclination to pardon her even if she's indicted. That statement necessarily affected the thinking of DOJ prosecutors who would be loath to even empanel a grand jury if the end result is no conviction.

There is no precedent in U.S. History for one major party candidate to say the other should be in jail.

Really?..perhaps so. although I doubt it. There was a presidential candidate who ran from the jail cell he was thrown into by a Democratic president for speech. A candidate later set free by the next Republican president.

I'm not sure I understand, Trump is unfit to be President because he said Hillary, who has obviously broken numerous laws relating to national security and is spectacular in her corruption and venality, should be in jail?

Shiloh, while I'm glad you're obsessed with me and I've rocked your world, this isn't a site for you to bitch at me. Feel free to email me.

Rush is firing up the listeners about the Obama/Soros/Hillary Democrat tactic of using Mexicans to riot everywhere Trump goes from now on. He says they are counting on Amnesty passage soon.

Limbaugh basically issued a " Come up on this hill and fight" challenge to all of the establishment guys dressed up as Cruz supporters or Ryan supporters. If this fight is lost, then all is lost.

It's sad reality. I don't like Trump, but these clowns need to be dealt with and Trump. I suppose, is less willing to negotiate on immigration than he used to be. Just put a 95% surtax on all monies sent to Mexico. Bankrupt the place.

"And then if I win . . . It's called a five-year statute of limitations, if I win."

What an interesting dynamic with Trump openly stating that if he wins the election he will try to put his opponent in jail! That's gotta raise the stakes, and put a little fear into her! And imagine the satisfaction Trump would feel, beating her at the polls and then saying now, elections have consequences indeed, and actually using his office to get her in that way.

American politics at its finest, written in quill, very substantive, policy driven business. I'm not so sure we haven't been wrong all along. The countries where the winner imprisons their opponent after elections, probably have much more exciting elections!

What an interesting dynamic with Trump openly stating that if he wins the election he will try to put his opponent in jail!

He promised an investigation. Can you point to where he promised to imprison her?

That's gotta raise the stakes, and put a little fear into her! And imagine the satisfaction Trump would feel, beating her at the polls and then saying now, elections have consequences indeed, and actually using his office to get her in that way.

Do you support the powerful not being required to abide by laws?

American politics at its finest, written in quill, very substantive, policy driven business. I'm not so sure we haven't been wrong all along. The countries where the winner imprisons their opponent after elections, probably have much more exciting elections!

What Trump speech did you watch? Because nobody else has seen a speech where he said "If I win, Hillary is going to jail"

A few things...Once written, twice... said..."Ann, you would have gone apeshit if Kerry had said in 2004 that Bush should be in jail for war crimes."

Plenty of his proxies did- and he never denounced them. It was a Democratic meme.

On the charges that Trump is a fascist: Democrats and their MSM allies have called every Republican candidate- not just presidential candidate- but every Republican candidate for any office fascists for decades now. So why should anyone believe it about Trump when it hasn't been true of any other? Actually, I see this particular charge as projection. It's Democrat pols calling for violence at Trump rallies. Which is a fascist/communist tactic.

And I see the idea of Trump being for his tribe has now migrated from the swamps of the internet to mainstream thought and commenting. Almost inevitable. It has long been my contention that the Democrat party is, and has always been, the party of group rights, simply swapping groups from whites to any/every other group and sub-group it could identify. And the Republican Party has been the party of individual rights. (note- group rights are nowhere mentioned in our Constitution- for good reason) And now, the Democrat party and it's spokespeople (PC word- should be spokesmen) are openly hostile to the largest group out there, straight white males. And a large number of straight white males have a huge cohort closely allied with them- the women they're married to, and the mothers that had them. The gender gap between the parties is a marriage gap. Single women with kids are married to the state. Married women with kids HATE paying taxes to support sluts with kids. That's the terminology I hear from married women. At least around here, most of the single moms with kids have multiple sperm donors for the kids, the married women seem to think the terminology fits. If you exhibit open hostility towards the largest group, you'll eventually drive them elsewhere, and they'll start seeing themselves as tribal members of that group BECAUSE that identity has been FORCED upon them.

It's rich for Perry to analyze Clinton's debate skills. The fact is that so-called debates are really joint press conferences with the opportunity for the rivals to comment on one another's answers. Clinton has done just fine in debates over the last 16 years. The neophyte Trump, on the other hand, was mostly mediocre in debates this year, benefiting from the fact that he never had a one-on-one encounter and watched while in most of the debates the many more experienced performers inexplicably trained their fire on one another rather than him. The questioners will be well prepared to pose questions that dig past his canned answers. Look for him to produce at least one major gaffe and several flubs per debate and for his sharp attacks on Clinton to seem actually boring from having been heard so many times already.

Blogger harrogate said..."And then if I win . . . It's called a five-year statute of limitations, if I win."

What an interesting dynamic with Trump openly stating that if he wins the election he will try to put his opponent in jail! That's gotta raise the stakes, and put a little fear into her! And imagine the satisfaction Trump would feel, beating her at the polls and then saying now, elections have consequences indeed, and actually using his office to get her in that way.

Now you care?

When Sunday D'Souza is thrown in jail, not a peep.

When John Doe prosecutions are happening,narry a word.

When a Senator from Alaska is prosecuted (and then dropped once the election is over) mum is the word.

When governors and congressmen in Texas are indicted only to have the cases laughed out of court, silence.

But Hillary clearly breaking the law, getting Americans killed, and lying about it? Now you've got to draw the line somewhere, amirite?

Torture is a war crime, as is starting a preventative war. Both of which Bush did.

The evergreen lies of a failed revolution. Torture has a very specific definition and calling something "torture" that EVERY single SOF trainee has to endure and that we only used on THREE very bad people is infantile in its inanity. Maybe you don't know what "permanent" means in the context of true torture, but your opinion matters zero in defining terms. Making killers uncomfortable for a few minutes is appreciated by most Americans for what results it brings.

Saddam Hussein signed the cease-fire agreement after Gulf War I causing a temporary cessation of hot fighting, but never lived up to the terms. He continued to fire on Saudi and US airplanes enforcing the no-fly zone, gassed the Kurds & southern Marsh Arabs (war crimes in truth, attempted genocide and a violation of the truce), and continued to work toward producing WMD. In fact he shipped some of his poison gasses to Syria pre-Gulf War II and they were used recently. Try googling "red line Syria" and see what you learn.

At least Bush went to the UN and Congress and got a coalition on board. Stupid Obama should have tried doing it that way instead of the illegal "wars" he waged.

"There is no precedent in U.S. History for one major party candidate to say the other should be in jail."

Oh my, perhaps you could get a few books on American political cartoons through the ages for a glimpse of what you propose is our enlightened past. Or you could, not to abuse the quoting Andrew Jackson rule, read about Ol' Hickory, and his great statement:

"The biggest regret I have in my life is not shooting Henry Clay."

Makes saying your opponent should be in jail, which she should, almost trivial.

The Hildebeest does not have a track record where she can legitimately attack another person's foreign policy shortcomings. Every time she does that, she reminds the percipient witnesses (there are a lot of zombies in the Hillary camp) that she was no great shakes in the foreign policy department.

Choose another line of attack Hillary--one where your manifold shortcomings aren't so exposed.

What an interesting dynamic with Trump openly stating that if he wins the election he will try to put his opponent in jail!

The obvious response is that his goal isn't to put her in jail for her political beliefs, which would be corrupt. It's because of all of her felonies, which is (following due process) completely appropriate. This is not complicated.

"I know what Fascism is. Anyone else who wants to know need only read Mussolini's book "The Doctrine of Fascism", available online or via Ann's Amazon portal."

There are as it happens a great many fascisms, this is not an easily defined category. There is more than one manifesto. If you want another, look for the "27 Puntos" of the Falange Espanola (1934). If you want to go there, even Leo XIII's encyclical Rerum novarum of 1891 counts as a proto-fascist document.

Fascism is reasonably described as, economically, a "third way" between capitalism and socialism. Trump, so far, has embraced some third-way aspects very much along the lines of rerum novarum. Promises of tariff and other trade barriers, as well as control, say, of outsourcing and labor competition count there also, and promises of protection of the welfare state. Fascism is also bound up with the national identity. This is very much in the Trump program, in specific detail as well as emotional atmosphere. Note that Fascism does not (in various manifestations) demand racism. Neither the Italians nor the Spanish ones were racist, or not more so than casual attitudes of the day. They may have been less so than most of their opponents.

Trumps opponents are if anything more fascist, actually operating a corporatist system in all but name, and espousing not one but multiple extreme nationalisms and tribal identities.

Fascism in all but name is an extremely popular system around the world. The only nations that escape the definition are those that are extremely decentralized (Switzerland?) and those contemptuous of their own nationalism/s.

Mike said...calling something "torture" that EVERY single SOF trainee has to endure...

When I went to POW school (1979) water boarding wasn't given to every student. It is also notable, that we were not special anything, we were just people who had a parachute, and thus could end up a prisoner. The USAF had a rule, if you wear a parachute, you had to have POW training.

They didn't have time to waterboard everyone, so it was used to great affect by waterboarding just a few. It was instructive to note, that we were to keep faith, even in these individual failures.

The object was, that you forced the interrogators to work for everything they got. If you gave them information, they won the battle, but you had to keep faith to win the war.

Thus, when they threatened to waterboard you again, you didn't just give in, you made them do it again, and they "wore themselves out" for everything they got.

Well, you did that or you flunked out and your parachute days were over :-)

I have to say though, that our waterboarding was much more violent, than I have read in the press. It was a physical as well as psychological experience.

Trump Twit(ter):In Crooked Hillary's telepromter speech yesterday, she made up things that I said or believe but have no basis in fact. Not honest!--No recordings? Hmm. And in his case, that placement of "or" is very Clintonian.

The only curious thing about all sides in this contest is that neither is at all militaristic. The last reasonably militaristic movement was the sidelined "conservatives" AKA the misused term "neocons", which were the last NON-fascist movement in the US.

I'm not sure that fascism actually requires a militarist element. Italy's was strong on propaganda imagery but that's really about as far as it went, nothing else they got up to in that line was in any way different from the policies of previous Italian Liberal governments.

A "preventative war" --- or, more accurately, a restarting of hostilities due to a country being in material breach of their ceasefire obligations. Any military action was more than justifiable on that ground alone. If you agree to something and then don't live up to it, consequences exist.

When a Senator from Alaska is prosecuted (and then dropped once the election is over) mum is the word.

It wasn't dropped. The case was botched so horrendously it was thrown out, if memory serves.

I'm shocked these same "Trump is a fascist" types seem to have little issue with the State Dept altering records of press conferences because of embarrassing answers...

Hillary will not be indicted, and if Trump wins the election she will be pardoned. Her chances of landing in jail are close to nil. What harm is there in Trump making a political issue of the fact that she SHOULD be in jail? How does that sort of argument diminish America? As I see it, Trump is just making Hillary's misconduct before the electorate. That is entirely appropriate.

What's crazy is that the lack of an indictment will be treated by the Democrats and the MSM (but I repeat myself) as an exoneration or vindication of Hillary. We will be treated to endless lectures about the vulnerability of the State Department's server and how Hillary, the responsible leader, enhanced the security of her emails with her private system. FOIA (and Hillary's decision to delete thousands of messages) will be brushed aside as a mere technical violation that is outweighed by the great service she did for America.

So Trump is getting ahead of all that. He's telling us early and often about Hillary's criminality. He really should find a compelling way to explain to voters how Hillary's unlawful conduct revealed her extreme selfishness, paranoia and secretiveness, and how she acted against the interest of government transparency. Open records law is also important.

carrie said...The Clintons wrote the book on end of Presidency pardons. If Trump wins, Obama will pardon Hillary as he leaves the White House.

6/3/16, 1:29 PM"

Would not a pardon require an admission of guilt to be made in order to be granted a pardon?If that is the case then as mentioned by several commenters to this blog that one of the Federal Records laws states that being convicted of the act (presumably what she will have to confess to in order to have that count pardoned) the violator is barred from holding any federal office for life. If that is the case her acceptance of a pardon would seem to make her legally disqualified for the job.

Torture has a very specific definition and calling something "torture" that EVERY single SOF trainee has to endure and that we only used on THREE very bad people is infantile in its inanity.

Well, yes it does has a very specific definition, and waterboarding falls well within the U.S. statutory definition as well as the definition in international treaty. Torture, by definition, does not included waterboarding carried out as part of a training exercise (that would be like saying all boxers are guilty of assault). Regardless of whether you think waterboarding is not torture, we did much was than that. At least a couple dozen detainees in U.S. military custody were tortured to death. Look it up.

Buwaya makes excellent points on the varieties of fascism. See, for instance, Casa Pound, a modern variant found in Italy that combines eco thinking with dashes of left and right wing ideology. Pointedly not racist.

Now, leave out the black shirts, the Duce and the King;What fascist (or pretty much any, at this point) political movement would be happy at the thought of importing black people to Rome, to join the nation?

Blogger Freder Frederson said...Torture has a very specific definition and calling something "torture" that EVERY single SOF trainee has to endure and that we only used on THREE very bad people is infantile in its inanity.

Well, yes it does has a very specific definition, and waterboarding falls well within the U.S. statutory definition as well as the definition in international treaty.

I find this oh so very confusing. Please help me comprehend.

Are you agreeing with the posters who are arguing that Trump is fine with saying she needs to go to jail?

It seems to me you are. You're doing the same thing Trump did. Drawing a conclusion based on what facts you have.

We may disagree with you, and you mqy disagree with Trump, but so what? Clearly Hillary is guilty and Bush wasn't.

But neither have been before a jury. So this is just our opinion. And Trumps opinion.

This is a man who said that more countries should have nuclear weapons, including Saudi Arabia.

This is someone who has threatened to abandon our allies in NATO – the countries that work with us to root out terrorists abroad before they strike us at home.

He believes we can treat the U.S. economy like one of his casinos and default on our debts to the rest of the world, which would cause an economic catastrophe far worse than anything we experienced in 2008.

He has said that he would order our military to carry out torture and the murder of civilians who are related to suspected terrorists – even though those are war crimes.

He says he doesn’t have to listen to our generals or our admirals, our ambassadors and other high officials, because he has – quote – “a very good brain.”

He also said, “I know more about ISIS than the generals do, believe me.” You know what? I don’t believe him.

He says climate change is a hoax invented by the Chinese, and he has the gall to say that prisoners of war like John McCain aren’t heroes.

He praises dictators like Vladimir Putin and picks fights with our friends – including the British prime minister, the mayor of London, the German chancellor, the president of Mexico and the Pope.

He says he has foreign policy experience because he ran the Miss Universe pageant in Russia.

And to top it off, he believes America is weak. An embarrassment. He called our military a disaster. He said we are – and I quote – a “third-world country.” And he’s been saying things like that for decades.

During the invasion the song was hugely popular in Italy and caused national fervor.[1] The implicitly erotic song was, however, somewhat of an embarrassment for the Fascist government, which had, starting in May 1936, introduced several laws prohibiting cohabitation and marriage between Italians and native people of the Italian colonial empire.[1] These efforts culminated in the Italian Racial Laws of 1938. The Fascist authorities considered banning the song, and removed all picture postcards depicting Abyssinian women from Roman shop windows.[1]

Trump replied to Hillary's foreign policy speech by saying she has to go to jail. Just helping you connect the dots.

Maybe Trump meant Hillary should visit a jail/prison as his non sequitur didn't make much sense. ok, it was just Trump being Trump as he really can't help himself, eh. Coherent thought, political or otherwise, is not his strong suit.

But, but, but he won the Rep nomination doing exactly this! The prosecution rests.

Lydia quoted:"This is a man who said that more countries should have nuclear weapons, including Saudi Arabia"

He is only observing the defense needs of more countries caused by Obama's policies toward Iran and China.

This is someone who has threatened to abandon our allies in NATO – the countries that work with us to root out terrorists abroad before they strike us at home.

He has questioned NATO's usefulness and the failure of other NATO members to participate at their agreed upon financial rate. Rooting out terrorists is in each nation's self interest and it has nothing to do with membership in NATO. How useful has NATO been in stopping Putin's advance in Crimea and the Ukraine?

He says he doesn’t have to listen to our generals or our admirals, our ambassadors and other high officials, because he has – quote – “a very good brain.”Hillary certainly didn't listen to her ambassador in Libya. For that he died.

He says climate change is a hoax invented by the Chinese, and he has the gall to say that prisoners of war like John McCain aren’t heroes.Interesting juxtaposition of what may turn out to be, if not a hoax, a false alarm - new info appears everyday that weakens the climate change predictions. I think McCain remark was ill advised. Like Hillary's "with a cloth or something?"

He praises dictators like Vladimir Putin and picks fights with our friends – including the British prime minister, the mayor of London, the German chancellor, the president of Mexico and the Pope.

Quick where's that picture of Hillary and her reset button? The Obama administration has spent 8 years offending our friends and buttering up our enemies. I believe Cameron and Merkel attacked Trump first on his Muslim immigration hiatus proposal, then closed their own borders.

And to top it off, he believes America is weak. An embarrassment. He called our military a disaster. He said we are – and I quote – a “third-world country.”

America is weak by comparison with even its near past.. It has been sadly weakened by the most divisive administration this side of the civil war era. Our military has been weakened drastically. The Generals that now run the show have been politicized. Today's numbers show that labor force participation is only 62% and almost half a million people left the labor force in May. It may not be precisely third world but if we stay at the 1.7% average growth of the Obama years things won't be "great" either.

Of course Hillary should be in prison - probably for the rest of her life, and for the next couple lifetimes. Only Freder is silly enough to claim here that there is no evidence of her law breaking. The IG pointed out that she did not turn over her work related emails after leaving office. Each one was an official record, owned by the government, and not her. And each one was illegally retained by her. Retention of each one by her was a federal crime. Each one. We are talking a minimum of 30,000 crimes, ignoring for the present all those she deleted instead of turning them over. Each of those constitutes another additional crime - the destruction of a federal record. That doesn't even get into the FBI side of this. The presence of each classified document on her private server was a federal felony. There were over 2,000 of them, maybe many more. She didn't have to know it was illegal - the standard is gross negligence, and she signed an NDA agreeing with that. She and her people keep talking about these emails at the time not being classified. Some were, and some of those were above Top Secret. But most everything she did at State was considered at least Sensitive, and the reason that they needed to be on department servers is that a number would ultimately be classified at some level. What they are essentially arguing is that little is classified up front, but instead classified later on. She got the information in close to real time (or should have), knowing that much of it would be ultimately classified. But, then she knew all this - she was apparently one of four primary classifiers in the entire govt. Everything generated while in office in her dept was classified under her authority. That is probably more than sufficient to bring her actions up from gross negligence to intentional. But that doesn't even matter, since the relevant states don't talk about classified information, but rather national security and national defense information. So, we are talking a minimum of > 30,000 violations of the federal records keeping laws, and probably > 2,000 violations of the Espionage Act.

Maybe to continue a bit - much of the evidence against her is at the level of Res Ipse Loquetor (the thing speaks for itself). A classified email on her server, no matter when classified, almost automatically qualifies as a felony. One or two might possibly be explained away. Probably not. But not if there are > 2,000 of them.

So Demented Donald is saying he loves the Latinos. How can you love 626 million people of every ilk? He continues to demonstrate his childishness by speaking his four-year-old mind and the Trump Hive cannot detect that he is not acting as a normal 70 year old would. And how can he love those that he otherwise despises?

- He called Latino immigrants “criminals” and “rapists.” - He said Mexicans (and other immigrants) were “killers” too. - He insisted the Mexican government intentionally sends their criminals to the U.S. - He ‘provided evidence’ that Latino immigrants were rapists. - He took a jab at Jeb Bush over his Mexican-born wife. - He brought up Jeb Bush’s wife yet again less than two months later. - He said his followers were “passionate” after two of them beat a Hispanic man. - He kicked Univision's Jorge Ramos out of a press conference. - He blamed blacks And Hispanics for violent crime across the country. - He says judge’s Mexican heritage presents 'absolute conflict’ in Trump U. case.

gadfly said...So Demented Donald is saying he loves the Latinos. How can you love 626 million people of every ilk? He continues to demonstrate his childishness by speaking his four-year-old mind and the Trump Hive cannot detect that he is not acting as a normal 70 year old would. And how can he love those that he otherwise despises?

- He called Latino immigrants “criminals” and “rapists.”- He said Mexicans (and other immigrants) were “killers” too.- He insisted the Mexican government intentionally sends their criminals to the U.S.- He ‘provided evidence’ that Latino immigrants were rapists.- He took a jab at Jeb Bush over his Mexican-born wife.- He brought up Jeb Bush’s wife yet again less than two months later.- He said his followers were “passionate” after two of them beat a Hispanic man.- He kicked Univision's Jorge Ramos out of a press conference.- He blamed blacks And Hispanics for violent crime across the country.- He says judge’s Mexican heritage presents 'absolute conflict’ in Trump U. case.

Immigrants? They are ILLEGAL ALIENS. They are all criminals. And some are rapists.

Trump is not only starting to become the little boy who cried wolf, but to earn his reputation.

Of course Hillary will and should attack his character. It's as disqualifying as his empty ideas - as half the GOP knows.

Republicans couldn't attack Trump's character because he's basically just a supercharged version of all their own paranoias and scaremongering impulses. But Hillary can do well to point out how thin-skinned, jumpy, easily startled and insecure he is. Republicans couldn't do that because those are defining features for them, as well - just in less prominent forms.

I don't think there's precedent in U.S. History for one party to nominate someone with as evident legal problems as Hillary Clinton.

If being barraged by an opposition cuckoo enough to need the political equivalent of a restraining order is an "evident legal problem," then I guess I can see your point.

The problem with the GOP is that they can't help themselves, ever. It gets so bad that, even if Hillary did something truly egregious, it's impossible to notice underneath the din and constant drum of false accusations, wild fables, rank paranoia, etc., constantly emanating from their camp over the last 25 years.

If she gets indicted for any current scandals, then I'd change my tune. But as of now the supreme confidence the GOP always displays in being judge, jury, executioner and chief propagandist lets me think they're the ones overplaying their cards.

Hillary is a horrible candidate, with a worse disregard for ethics and principles than any other candidate running prior to 2016.

But then the GOP got the wonderful idea to run Candidate Verbal Twitter-rhea, who has an even worse grasp of separation of powers (threats to judges?!), basic policy, and everything else.

Or as Bill Maher put it, he doesn't want to wake up to find that President Trump has invaded Poland, put Hulk Hogan on the nickel, or re-tweeted the nuclear launch codes.

Hillary nailed it perfectly yesterday. As bad as she is, there's simply no way she's as immature as Trump. And that's probably what's going to decide this thing.

- He took a jab at Jeb Bush over his Mexican-born wife.- He brought up Jeb Bush’s wife yet again less than two months later.

And all Jeb had to do was tell Trump next time they were on stage together that he could apologize right there right then or he (Jeb) would beat the living snot out of him (Trump) right there on camera. Which is what I would have done, and most of the rest of the males commenting here. Show a little spine, ya know. Did you notice how Carly got Trump to back down with little more than a glare?

- He blamed blacks And Hispanics for violent crime across the country.

Kathryn Steinle wasn't murdered by a Hispanic? Apparently the murder was done just for fun -- not during a robbery or rape or even an attempted abduction. You see a blonde Anglo girl, you shoot her. If you're a Hispanic in a sanctuary city, anyway. And BTW Chicago's 2016 homicide rate is 264 murdered year to date. That is nearly entirely Black on Black crime. I assume gadfly is okay with that since he doesn't much care about murdered Black people.

Her tone was nothing like Trump's, not one bit. She spoke in a level voice in a serious manner, stating irrefutable truths about Trump's complete unsuitability to lead the most powerful nation on earth. The man is a buffoon and he will lose in a landslide. So be it, this is what the right wing base decided they wanted to represent them, they got what they wanted.

Clinton is wasting her time taking on Trump when she could well lose California to Bernie Sanders on Tuesday (I hope she does!).

It doesn't matter. Even if she does she will almost certainly retain more delegates. No, she's not "wasting her time." Wasting time is what Trump does every time he opens his mouth or moves his thumbs.

I suppose that doesn't matter to you now.

What doesn't?

All I'm saying is that she made an effective attack, for once.

It doesn't change much of anything else. But it does highlight the fact of his incredible immaturity - even relative to her.

I am second to no one in not trusting Hillary, but I am also totally perplexed that Ann sees this speech as without content. It was quite substantive. That the NYTs downplays that might have more to do with the fact that Hillary moved to the center and espoused a strong internationalist stance supportive of the idea of American exceptionalism and an assertive role in world affairs, as well as strong support for Israel, etc. - things the Times absolutely opposes and does not want its candidate to back. I think the entire premise of this thread is wrong. Plus, and again I say I recognize fully Hillary's huge flaws, it took some guts to take on her own party's left wing days before this California vote.

no red queen burned down libya, for the islamists, ceded volodya the right of way through the peregrushka, gave islamic state sanctuary through the pullout, aided the arming of salafi elements, in syria, gave the boko breathing room, that world magazine piece,

While there may be many types of fascism (small l)there is only one Fascism (capital). That is, the ideology developed and implemented in Italy by Mussolini.

As far as I know, no other party or leader, outside of Italy, ever called their ideology "fascist". It has always been a name imposed by others. The Falange, never, to the best of my knowledge, called itself or characterized itself as "fascist". The Falange had more to do with Carlism than with socialism or fascism.'

You are not the first to say that there are many different types of "fascism". Orwell in the 40's may have been the first to point out that the word had become, even then, simply a pejorative meaning politics you disagree with.

You are the one calling Trump "fascist", (small l) and you are just blowing shit out your ass with no knowledge of how to use the word.

The refugee crisis globally. SHE started it. Hillary. Nobody else. Syria and Libya were HER calls and she talked Obama into going along with it.

ISIS? SHE is responsible for that.

Nothing Trump can dream up touches that reality. Hillary has ruined the world with her asinine policies. Plus her rampant corruption and selling government access for cash.

- He called Latino immigrants “criminals” and “rapists.”

The illegals, who he was referring to, are ALL criminals. By any rational definition of the word.

The problem with the GOP is that they can't help themselves, ever. It gets so bad that, even if Hillary did something truly egregious, it's impossible to notice underneath the din and constant drum of false accusations, wild fables, rank paranoia, etc., constantly emanating from their camp over the last 25 years.

Can you name a single false accusation? The problem Hillary has is that, in the end, ALL of them end up being accurate.